Activities of Heidi HAUTALA related to 2014/2150(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (19)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the smart regulation agenda constituteis presented as an attempt to consolidate efforts to introduce better lawmaking, simplify EU law and reduce administrative and/or regulatory burdens, and to embark on a path towards good governance grounded in evidence-based policymaking, in which impact assessments and ex-post controls play an essential role;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas administrative burdens are however to be clearly distinguished from regulatory burdens; whereas reduction of administrative burdens should in principle be neutral with regard to the objectives to be achieved by the relevant law; whereas the reduction of regulatory burdens however questions the very existence of the laws in questions and the protection level provided by these;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking of 2003 has been partially outdated by the current legislative environment created by the Treaty of Lisbon;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas in the past years the better regulation agenda has nevertheless contributed to improving legislative practices, but has also triggered a significant opposition by civil society groups; whereas the large number of different names and programmes introduced by the Commission in the area, such as ‘better regulation’, ’better lawmaking’, ‘smart regulation’, ’regulatory fitness’, ‘Think Small First’, ’fitness checks’, ‘ABR+’, does not set a good example for achieving the clarity that citizens legitimately expect from the EU;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the aims and objectives of the Union spelled out in Article 3 TEU are all of equal import; whereas the Commission underlines that the REFIT programme does not call into question existing policy objectives, nor doesshould it impact negatively on the health and safety of citizens, consumers, workers or the environment; whereas the Commission has however proposed or intends to propose simplifications in the name of REFIT that may negatively affect the protection of human health or the environment via e.g. deleting or reducing safety requirements in the context of marketing authorisations.
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the decision of Commission President Juncker to entrust the First Vice- President of the Commission with the portfolio of better regulation, which underlines the high political importance of this topic, and which also needs to be seen against the radically different internal structure with new working methods within the Commission, and a drastically reduced work programme;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Is however very concerned about the Better Regulation package adopted by the Commission on 19 May 2015, as it introduces or seeks to introduce a significant amount of additional administrative procedures with a view to reducing regulatory burden;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that the Commission should focus more on the quality of legislation rather than on the number of legislative actsabove all what is needed to achieve sustainable development and then deliver proposals of good quality of legislation rather than focus on reducing regulatory burden per se;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomNotes the Commission’s commitment to negotiate a new interinstitutional agreement on better lawmaking that takes account of the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty and the Framework Agreement between Parliament and the Commission, and to consolidate best practices in areas such as legislative planning, impact assessments, systematic ex-post checks of EU legislation and the implementation and handling of delegated and implementing acts; stresses that regulatory simplification (REFIT) cannot and should not be taken as a pretext for lowering the level of ambition on issues of related to the safety and wellbeing of people, or on the protection of the environment;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Notes with concern that regulatory Fitness Checks may also lead to years of regulatory uncertainty for business and could put at risk the achievements and commitments of the European Union; in this context underlines the Birds and Habitats Directives importance to environmental protection and to conservation and restoration of biodiversity and natural capital;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is convincedNotes that impact assessments constitute an important tool for supporting decision- making in all EU institutions and play a significant role in better regulation, provided its limitations and potential bias towards quantifiable aspects are clearly recognized; remains, however, conscious of the fact that such assessments are not a substitute for political assessments and decisions;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Underlines that it should remain in the discretion of the legislator if and when an impact assessment is commissioned on substantive amendments; similarly there should be no obligation on the legislator to perform an impact assessment of an agreement reached on a legislative act prior to the final adoption of an agreement;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Does not consider it appropriate to establish an "independent panel" which every institution would be entitled to call on to assess numerous aspects of any substantive amendments, such as e.g. the costs or practicability of implementation, as this would create a parallel trilogue and undermine the competences and responsibilities of the official negotiation teams;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes note of the conversion of the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into a ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’ and expects, but is concerned that the inclusion of independent experts will have an advantageous effect on theundermine the political responsibility of the Commission for its policy proposals, all the more that a positive opinion by this Board on the related impact assessment is required to processed within the Commissionfile to interservice consultation to; insists that impact assessments should be based oinclude an estimating whate of the additional costs would be for the Member States if there were no solution at European level;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Welcomes the fact that the Council Working Parties are now, at an early stage of the debate on specific legislative proposals, to consider the relevant Commission impact assessments on the basis of an indicative check list: regrets, however, that the Council Secretariat does not yet have an impact assessment unit of its own, given that it should at least assess any substantive amendments to the Commission proposals;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. UrgeReminds Parliament’s specialist committees to make more consistentof the possibilities to make use of in-house impact assessment instruments, particularly where substantial changes to the original Commission proposal are being envisagedcapacity;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Commission not to abandon its ambitious targets of reducing the administrative burden on SMEs and thereby helping to establish a basis for the creation of quality jobs and, but urges that measures be taken to ensure that objectives concerning the public interest including user-friendly, ecological, social, health and safety and gender-equality standards are not compromised; takes the view that options that would permit lighter regimes should be assessed on a case-by-case basis;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is making ex-post analysis an integral part of better regulation; reminds however that ex-post evaluations should never replace the Commission's duty as guardian of the Treaties to monitor effectively and timely the application of Union law by Member States and to take all necessary steps to ensure good application thereof; stresses that, in the interests of legal certainty for citizens and businesses, such analyses should be carried out within a sufficient time-frame, preferably several years after the deadline for transposition into national law;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Stresses that the Commission should tackle the policy incoherence across European and national legislations; underlines that the Commission also has the responsibility to implement the programmes and action plans, agreed jointly with the Council; calls in this context on the Commission to rapidly implement the 7th Environmental Action Programme, and to come forward with proposals on effective legal protection and access to justice with regard to environmental matters;